Shewaram vs, Philippine Airlines
Meanwhile,
(17 SCRA 606, (1966)
Facts: A PAL ticket, on the reverse side, stated in fine print that if the
value of baggage is not stated, and the baggage is lost, the maximum
liability of PAL is P100.00 if value in excess of P100.00 is stated, PAL
will charge extra because PAL is being held liable for an amount
exceeding P100.00. Shewaram, a Hindu from Davao, boarded a PAL
plane for Manila. Among his baggage was a camera with P800.00 and
it was lost. PAL offered to pay P100.00. Shewaram wanted full
payment of P800.00.
Issue: Whether the limited liability rule shall apply in the case at bar?
Held: The limited liability rule shall not apply. Since this is a stipulation
on qualified liability, which operates to reduce the liability of the carrier,
the carrier and the shipper must agree thereupon. Otherwise, the
carrier will be liable for full. PAL is fully liable (for full) because
Shewaran did not agree to the stipulation on the ticket, as manifested
by the fact that Shewaram did not sign the ticket. Ticket should have
been signed.
Ong Yui vs. CA Case Digest
Ong Yui vs. Court of Appeals
(91 SCRA 223)
Facts: On august 26, 1967, Ong Yiu was a fare paying passenger of
respondent PAL from Mactan, Cebu to Butuan City wherein he was
scheduled to attend a trial. As a passenger, he checked in one piece of
luggae, blue maleta for which he was issued a claim ticket. Upon
arrival at Butuan City, petitioner claimed his luggage but it could not be
found. PAL Butuan sent a message to PAL Cebu which in turn sent a
message to PAL Manila that same afternoon. PAL Manila advised PAL
Cebu that the luggage has been overcarried to Manila and that it would
be forwarded to PAL Cebu that same day. PAL Cebu then advised PAL
Butuan that the luggage will be forwarded the following day, on
scheduled morning flight. This message was not received by PAL
Butuan as all the personnel had already gone for the day.
Ong Yiu was worried about the missing luggage because it contained
vital documents needed for the trial the next day so he wired PAL Cebu
demanding delivery of his luggage before noon that next day or he
would hold PAL liable for damages based on gross negligence. Early
morning, petitioner went to the Butuan Airport to inquire about the
luggage but did not wait for the arrival of the morning flight at 10:00am.
which carried his luggage. A certain Dagorro, a driver of a colorum car,
who also used to drive the petitioner volunteered to take the luggage to
the petitioner. He revelaed that the documents were lost. Ong Yiu
demanded from PAL Cebu actual and compensatory damages as an
incident of breach of contract of carriage.
Issue:
Whether or not PAL is guilty of only simple negligence and not gross
negligence?
Whether the doctrine of limited liability doctrine applies in the instant
case?
Held: PAL had not acted in bad faith. It exercised due diligence in
looking for petitioners luggage which had been miscarried. Had
petitioner waited or caused someone to wait at the airport for the
arrival of the morning flight which carried his luggage, he would have
been able to retrieve his luggage sooner. In the absence of a wrongful
act or omission or fraud, the petitioner is not entitled to moral
damages. Neither is he entitled to exemplary damages absent any
proof that the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless
manner.
The limited liability applies in this case. On the presumed negligence of
PAL, its liability for the loss however, is limited on the stipulation written
on the back of the plane
Ticket which is P100 per baggage. The petitioner not having declared
a greater value and not having called the attention of PAL on its true
value and paid the tariff therefore. The stipulation is printed in
reasonably and fairly big letters and is easily readable. Moreso,
petitioner had been a frequent passenger of PAL from Cebu to Butuan
City and back and he being a lawyer and a businessman, must be fully
aware of these conditions.
Cathay Pacific Airways vs. CA (1993)
Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of
Appeals which affirmed withmodification that of the trial court by
increasing the award of damages in favor of private respondentTomas
L. Alcantara.
Facts: On 19 October 1975, respondent Tomas L. Alcantara was a first
class passenger of petitionerCathay Pacific Airways from Manila to
Hongkong and onward from Hongkong to Jakarta. The purpose of his
trip was to attend the following day, October 20, 1975, a conference
with the Director General of Trade of Indonesia. He checked in his
luggage which contained not only his clothing and articles forpersonal
use but also papers and documents he needed for the
conference.Upon his arrival in Jakarta, respondent discovered that his
luggage was missing. Private respondent wastold that his luggage was
left behind in Hongkong. For this, respondent Alcantara was offered
$20.00 as"inconvenience money" to buy his immediate personal needs
until the luggage could be delivered tohim. The respondent, as a result
of the incident had to seek postponement of his pre-
arrangedconference.When his luggage finally reached Jakarta more
than twenty four hours later, it was not delivered to himat his hotel but
was required by petitioner to be picked up by an official of the
Philippine Embassy.Respondent filed a case for damages in the CFI of
Lanao del Norte which ruled in his favour.Both parties appealed to the
Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals rendered its decision affirming
thedecision of the CFI but by modifying its awards by increasing the
damages.Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not
applying the Warsaw Convention to limit theliability of the respondent
airline.Ruling: No.
xxx
although the Warsaw Convention has the force and effect of law in this
country, being a treatycommitment assumed by the Philippine
government, said convention does not operate as an
exclusiveenumeration of the instances for declaring a carrier liable for
breach of contract of carriage or as anabsolute limit of the extent of
that liability. The Warsaw Convention declares the carrier liable
fordamages in the enumerated cases and under certain limitations.
However, it must not be construed to
preclude the operation of the Civil Code and other pertinent laws. It
does not regulate, much less
exempt, the carrier from liability for damages for violating the rights of
its passengers under the contract
of carriage, especially if wilfull misconduct on the part of the carrier's
employees is found or established,which is clearly the case before Us.
For, the Warsaw Convention itself provides in Art. 25 that
"(1) The carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of
this convention which excludeor limit his liability, if the damage is
caused by his wilfull misconduct or by such default on his part as,
inaccordance with the law of the court to which the case is submitted,
is considered to be equivalent towilfull misconduct.
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY vs. THE COURT OF
APPEALS and DEVELOPMENT INSURANCE AND SURETY
CORPORATION
G.R. No. L-49407 19 August 1988
Facts:
National Development Company (NDC) appointed Maritime Company
of the Philippines (MCP) as its agent to manage and operate its vessel,
Dona Nati, for and in behalf of its account. In 1964, while en route to
Japan from San Francisco, Dona Nati collided with a Japanese vessel,
SS Yasushima Maru, causing its cargo to be damaged and lost. The
private respondent, as insurer to the consigners, paid almost
Php400,000.00 for said lost and damaged cargo. Hence, the private
respondent instituted an action to recover from NDC.

Issue:
Which laws govern the loss and destruction of goods due to collision of
vessels outside Philippine waters?
Ruling:
In a previously decided case, it was held that the law of the country to
which the goods are to be transported governs the liability of the
common carrier in case of their loss, destruction or deterioration
pursuant to Article 1753 of the Civil Code. It is immaterial that the
collision actually occurred in foreign waters, such as Ise Bay, Japan.
It appears, however, that collision falls among matters not specifically
regulated by the Civil Code, hence, we apply Articles 826 to 839, Book
Three of the Code of Commerce, which deal exclusively with collision
of vessels.
Eastern Shipping vs IAC
Doctrine:
When a carrier fails to establish any caso fortuito, the presumption by
law of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier applies.
Facts:
- 13 coils of uncoated 7-wire stress relived wire strand for
prestressed concrete were shipped on board the vessel Japri Venture
(owned by Easter Shipping Lines) for delivery to Stresstek Post-
Tensioning Phils. in Manila. The cargo was insured by First Nationwide
Assurance Corporation (FNAC).
- The vessel arrived in Manila and discharged the cargo to the
custody of E.Razon Inc., from whom the consignees customs broker
received it for delivery to the consignees warehouse.
- It appears that while en route to Manila, the vessel encountered
very rough seas and stormy weather and the cargo stored in the lower
hatch of the vessel was flooded with water about one foot deep. That
upon survey, it was found that several coils were rusty on one side and
that the wetting of the cargo was caused by fresh water that entered
the hatch when the vessel encountered heavy weather.
- FNAC paid Stresstek about Php 172K for damage and loss to the
insured cargo.
- Being subrogated to the rights of Stresstek, FNAC now seeks o
recover from Eastern what it has indemnified Stresstek less the
salvage value of the goods, or the total of about Php 124K.
- The RTC ordered for the dismissal of the case.
Upon appeal, the CA held that Eastern is liable to FNAC.
Issue:
Whether Easter should be held liable even if it claims that the shipment
was discharged and delivered complete into the custody of the arrastre
operator under clean tally sheets.
Held:
- YES. In arriving at the decision, the SC agreed with the CA on its
findings and conclusions.
- The heavy seas and rains referred to in the masters report were
not caso fortuito, but normal occurrences that an ocean going vessel,
particularly in the month of September which, in our area, is a month of
rains and heavy seas would encounter as a matter of routine. They are
not unforeseen nor unforeseeable. These are conditions that ocean-
going vessels would encounter and provide for, in the ordinary course
of voyage.
- The rain water (not sea water) found its way into Japri Venture is a
clear indication that care and foresight did not attend the closing of the
ships hatches so that rain water would not find its way into the cargo,
- Since Easter has failed to establish any caso fortuito, the
presumption of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier applies;
and the carrier must present evidence that it has observed the
extraordinary diligence required in Art. 1733 to escape liability.
The SC held that the presumption that the cargo was in apparent good
condition when it was delivered by the vessel to the arrastre operation
by the clean tally sheets has been overturned. The evidence is clear to
the effect that the damage to the cargo was suffered while aboard
petitioners vessel.